Offering alternatives to students is, ostensibly, a great thing to do. We can all agree that individualized learning that inspires every student to meet their own potential is ideal. However, it is wrong to assume that we can legislate such alternatives and extra options into existence, especially in small, rural schools.

As an educator in a rural district, I have spent many years observing how our students often have less access to the options that are readily available in larger and urban districts. For instance, in addition to fewer electives, we offer few opportunities for students to take AP or dual credit courses, forcing many of our best scholars to travel forty miles to a community college as Running Start students. Additionally, where other districts had classes to support students who failed the state assessments in math or language arts, we did not have the resources or staff to offer such dedicated courses. Instead, because we are committed to our kids, our staff has worked outside of the regular schedule to support them and create Collections of Evidence or prep for test retakes.

The fact is, in small schools, it is most likely that everyone gets the same offerings, and individualization can be difficult, because it is expensive. Granted, many small schools have gotten very creative to offer programs to their students that go above and beyond the core offerings. There are online programs that support individuals as they explore their interests, and many great educators in small schools offer outstanding and creative programs that would be the envy of the larger districts. Such enhancements in rural schools depend on administrators and teachers with extra energy and creativity to spare.

So, now we have the ultimate in alternatives- an alternative to passing the Smarter Balanced Assessment. New legislation rather vaguely outlines how the state assessment is no longer directly tied to high school graduation. Almost everyone is celebrating this change and hailing the final victory against high stakes testing. I am less enthusiastic.

You see, what happens next is still a mystery. House Bill 1599 (summary on page 31) effectively delinked the statewide assessment from graduation requirements, BUT it did not let anyone off the hook for proving mastery in language arts and math. Students will still take the test, and passing it is the easiest and clearest way to prove mastery. The bill also added a lot more to the High School and Beyond Plans that students must have. Districts will all have to determine what is meant by “graduation pathway options,” and they will have  to adopt academic acceleration policies for high school students. It sounds like we will have more requirements, but not more money.

In small rural districts, that means figuring out how do the most with the least support. And who misses out? Students do.

When the state steps back and puts more on the districts, it can be a benefit. However, look at it through the lens of a small district educator. I predict that determining mastery of core subjects will become the responsibility of local entities. In large districts, that will still require a level of accountability. It is possible that the people in charge of determining the students’ mastery of a subject in a larger district could be both qualified in the subject and not the direct instructors of the students in question. In a small district, when a department has so few people in it, who makes that call? Who has the expertise? Who is accountable for the instruction received by the student? Is it the same person?

So, what if we are allowed/expected to offer courses that replace the assessment? We implement the instruction. We score the work. We make the determination. It sounds great, if you are ethical, equitable, and without bias. But, are you? And that doesn’t even address the issue of how small districts will have the funds to offer such a class for a small handful of kids.

I know, I know… the test has problems with equity and bias, too. I’m just saying that these are ongoing issues, delinking the test or not. And, more importantly, solutions to these problems are very different in small districts, and small districts have very little pull on the legislature.

Having common requirements for students can be limiting, but, in many ways, it ensures that all students get the education our public schools promise to provide. All districts have their challenges, and small, rural districts have some extreme challenges when it comes to offering a variety of courses. When we loosen up the requirements for schools and give way to local control, we are going to see problems with equity. Where is the oversight for this? How do we pay to support it and monitor it? How can we ensure that students in every district in Washington are still getting the skills they need to be successful?

I know that the one thing a small district does have is the opportunity for all players to sit at the same small table and come up with common solutions. Our staff will do what’s best for our kids, and I imagine it is the same all over Washington. I sincerely hope that it is.

I would love to hear some other views on the subject. Are you seeing only positive outcomes from the change? Does anyone else worry about the consequences? Let’s talk about it.